Reframing the question

[genxlib]

I think the question of whether Trump incited the insurrection is the wrong framing.

I would ask it this way.

Would the attack on the Capitol have ever occurred if Trump didn't exist? If he didn't lie about results, tell them to come to DC, rally them, tell them to march, etc.

The attack never happens without his involvement. He has to be responsible for it.

[SkeezerRedux]

1. I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, but...

There's no way to say beyond any shadow of a doubt that any of that actually caused the riot.

And that's the point I made in another post. The Republicans and their attorneys purposely set the bar of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" so high to preclude a conviction. We can all agree that words have consequences, but how do you prove that any words actually caused action leading to consequence?

What's really odd is that Hillary didn't actually have to be IN Libya in order for these same Repukes to consider her guilty of murder.

[genxlib]

2. That is kinda my point

It is nearly impossible to prove that those things caused the riot. That is why I would reframe the question.

The riot never would have happened if those things didn't happen. If Trump gave up his challenges and conceded? If he never said to come to DC? If he didn't speak at the rally?

If the above never happened then the followers would not be outraged. The crowd wouldn't be in DC. The attendees wouldn't have assembled. I don't see any circumstances where the attack happens if Trump's behavior had been different in the previous 60 days. Hence, it is his fault.

[SkeezerRedux]

3. OK. I must have misinterpreted your post. I'll stand corrected.

But it's still a stretch to suggest that had Trump not existed, the riot wouldn't have happened. Agreed?

I keep going back in my own mind to the simple fact that a sitting president said and did everything he could to cast suspicion on the electoral process, publicly called for force to be used to overturn the election results in his favor, and to my knowledge never took any steps to PREVENT what resulted. That settles it for me, but I'm not an attorney and can't say if that meets evidentiary standards to convict.

[Stallion]

4. Actual Causation is usually proved by a "but for" test

...but for the existence of Trump's actions, is it reasonably likely that the insurrection would have occurred

[Jedi Guy]

5. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but...

This sounds a lot like "he exists, therefore he's guilty." It'd be like a prosecutor in a murder trial pointing at the defendant and saying, "There he is right there, so clearly he did it, clearly he's guilty." That's not proof of guilt by any standard, though.